周一，美国国土安全部特工突袭了众议员伊尔汉·奥马尔位于华盛顿特区的住所。此次行动表面上是为了调查她童年时期移民美国的经历是否涉及违法行为。该行动获得了联邦法官的批准，据称是在与执法部门反复磋商后才得以实施；然而，众多民权组织均对此次行动表示强烈质疑并予以谴责。
Agents from the Department of Homeland Security on Monday raided the Washington, D.C., home of Rep. Ilhan Omar ostensibly in connection with a criminal investigation into her childhood immigration to the United States. The raid was signed off on by a federal judge, apparently after a “back-and-forth” with federal law enforcement, and has been condemned by civil rights groups as highly suspect.
周三，唐纳德·特朗普政府针对奥马尔的打压行动进一步升级：联邦特工向她的多位亲属发出了传票，其中包括她的妹妹萨赫拉·努尔。《华尔街日报》还报道称，特朗普政府的最终目的就是剥夺奥马尔的公民身份并将其驱逐出境。多年来，特朗普一直对奥马尔实施各种威胁、种族主义诋毁、恐吓，甚至公开呼吁将其驱逐出境，而此次行为不过是这种滥用权力的极端体现罢了。
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s targeting of Omar escalated even further as federal agents issued subpoenas to many of her relatives, including her sister Sahra Noor, and the Wall Street Journal reported the Trump administration’s ultimate goal is to strip Omar of her citizenship and deport her. This obscene abuse of power comes after years of Trump targeting Omar with threats, racist smears, intimidation, and calls for her deportation.
然而，除了极少数例外情况外，主流媒体的评论员们对此事几乎保持沉默，绝大多数报道也只是以双方各执一词的形式呈现，并未表达明确立场。这与2025年8月特朗普下令突袭其前国家安全顾问、新保守主义评论员约翰·博尔顿时的情形形成了鲜明对比——当时主流舆论一致对此表示愤慨。这两起事件均反映出特朗普惯于利用司法部来打击所谓“政敌”的行径，但唯有针对博尔顿的行动引发了媒体的广泛谴责。
But with rare exception, the response from the mainstream media’s pundit class has been largely muted, with the vast bulk of the coverage coming in the form of he said/she said, down-the-middle reporting. This is in stark contrast with how elite opinion-shapers responded with uniform outrage in the days after Trump’s also dubious raid on John Bolton, his former national security adviser and a neoconservative commentator, in August 2025. Both are part of a consistent pattern of Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack his perceived enemies, yet only the latter solicited widespread media condemnation.
就在博尔顿遭突袭的当天，《纽约时报》《华盛顿邮报》以及《华尔街日报》便发表了措辞严厉的社论。随后一周内，这些报纸的评论版也相继刊发多篇文章，对此次行动的合法性提出质疑，并严厉谴责这种明显的权力滥用行为。《Politico》《纽约客》以及《大西洋月刊》也均对此次行动予以谴责，其中《大西洋月刊》甚至刊登了四篇义愤填膺的评论文章。
The very day of the Bolton raid, we saw scathing editorials from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Over the next week, each of these newspapers also published separate pieces from their opinion staff opposing the raid, casting doubt on its legitimacy, and otherwise leveling outrage at the obvious power grab. The raid was explicitly condemned in Politico, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic, which published four different indignant columns.
对奥马尔住宅的突袭迄今为止未获得上述任何媒体干预。时报、邮报或华尔街日报均未发表社论或观点专栏；《纽约客》、Politico或《大西洋月刊》也未就“法治”被侵蚀发表自我陶醉的评论。《大西洋月刊》确实刊登了一篇关于奥马尔突袭的文章，但其语气含糊不清，持“两边论”立场。（《大西洋月刊》曾就博尔顿突袭发表类似“两边论”专栏，但该文未被纳入我们列出的表达对博尔顿突袭愤怒的观点文章之中。）
The raid on Omar’s home has thus far received zero of the above media interventions. No editorials, no opinion columns in the Times, Post, or Journal; no preening in The New Yorker or Politico or Atlantic about the erosion of “rule of law.”The Atlantic did run an article on the Omar raid but it was equivocal and Both Sides in its tone. (A similar Both Sides column The Atlantic published about the Bolton raid was not included in our list of opinion pieces expressing outrage over the Bolton raid.)
这与去年特朗普司法部针对博尔顿行动时所表现出的激愤愤怒基调形成鲜明对比。2025年8月，《纽约时报》写道：“特朗普先生及其任命的人员显然在扭曲司法体系，以服务其政治利益并恐吓其批评者。”“针对博尔顿的FBI突袭越过了特朗普报复行动的红线，”特朗普盟友所有的《华盛顿邮报》宣称。即便是通常坚定支持特朗普的右翼《华尔街日报》编辑委员会，也在标题为《特朗普的报复行动瞄准约翰·博尔顿》的社论中参与其中，明确指出“总统的第二个任期成功包括报复”。
This is in stark contrast to the breathless tone of outrage leveled at Trump when his DOJ targeted Bolton last year. “It is clear that Mr. Trump and his appointees,” the Times wrote in August 2025, “are perverting the justice system to serve their political interests and intimidate their critics.”“FBI raid targeting Bolton crosses a line in the Trump revenge campaign,” proclaimed the Trump ally–owned Washington Post. Even the right-wing WSJ editorial board, typically a staunch backer of Trump, got in on the fervor under the headline “Trump’s Vendetta Campaign Targets John Bolton,” which made clear “that second-term success for the President includes retribution.”
《华尔街日报》不仅未像对待博尔顿突袭那样发表反对奥马尔突袭的社论或专栏，反而刊登了助理编辑版主詹姆斯·弗里曼（James Freeman）的一篇专栏，该文赞同该突袭，并借助小报式暗示对奥马尔进行污蔑。
The Journal not only didn’t publish an editorial or column opposing the Omar raid as they did with Bolton, they published a column by assistant editorial page editor James Freeman endorsing it and using tabloid innuendo to cast aspersions on Omar.
这并不是说主流媒体对奥马尔突袭完全没有报道。《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》和《华尔街日报》均刊登了有关突袭的文章和分析，但——与博尔顿案不同——它们未发表任何表达愤怒并要求追责的观点文章，以回应明显的权威主义权力夺取。
This isn’t to say the mainstream press hasn’t on the Omar raid. The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal all ran articles, and analysis, on the raid, but — unlike with the Bolton case — they have published no opinions expressing outrage and demanding recourse for the obvious authoritarian power grab.
这种明显差异的原因可能很多：奥马尔是黑人穆斯林，博尔顿是白人，且不是穆斯林。奥马尔是女性，博尔顿是男性。奥马尔被视为“极左翼”，博尔顿则稳坐华盛顿精英共识的中间偏右位置。奥马尔是以色列的严厉批评者，而博尔顿则是其最公开、最嗜血的拥护者之一。现实几乎可以肯定，这是所有这些因素的综合结果。从大局来看，博尔顿是“俱乐部”的成员，而奥马尔不是。
The reasons for this glaring discrepancy are likely many: Omar is Black and Muslim, Bolton is white and not. Omar is a woman, Bolton is a man. Omar is considered “far left,” Bolton is squarely in the center-right of elite Washington consensus. Omar is a harsh critic of Israel, and Bolton is among its most overtly and bloodthirsty champions. The reality is it’s almost certainly a combination of all these factors. Writ large, Bolton is a member of The Club, and Omar isn’t.
在特朗普第一个任期的头几个月，类似的非对称内群体与外群体愤怒动态也可见一斑：当时媒体大肆渲染，哀叹特朗普决心恐吓新闻界并逮捕记者。然而，同一批媒体几乎完全忽略了他的司法部对两名独立记者亚伦·坎图和阿列克谢·伍德的荒谬起诉，原因是他们报道了2016年就职典礼期间1月20日的骚乱——该案件最终被认定毫无根据。最终，尽管缺乏持续的媒体关注，华盛顿特区市政府还是被迫与受迫害的记者达成和解，支付了赔偿金。
A similar dynamic of asymmetric In-Group vs. Out-Group outrage could be seen during the early months of Trump’s first term when the media spilled oceans of ink lamenting Trump’s determination to intimidate the press and lock up reporters. Yet this same press almost entirely ignored his DOJ’s absurd prosecution of two independent reporters, Aaron Cantu and Alexei Wood, for covering the January 20 unrest during his 2016 inauguration — a case that was found to have no merit. Ultimately, the city of Washington, D.C., was, despite the lack of any sustained media attention, forced to settle with a payout to the persecuted reporters.
作为美国媒体的一条准则，原则的一贯应用——无论看起来多么高尚崇高——都让位于阶级团结。博尔顿是企业媒体人物、国家安全精英、鹰派人物，也是一名坚定的制度主义者。换句话说，他属于“俱乐部”。奥马尔则都不是这些。直接的结果是，特朗普对她的荒谬迫害只在边缘地带被注意到，或许会受到批评，但并非广泛、持续的愤怒和谴责的来源。这种区别，非常明确地，只留给“俱乐部”里的人。
As a rule for U.S. media, the consistent application of principle — as high-minded and lofty as they may appear — takes a back seat to class solidarity. Bolton is a corporate media figure, a national security elite, a hawk, and a committed institutionalist. He is, in other words, . Omar is none of these things. As a direct result, her outrageous persecution by Trump is noted and perhaps critiqued around the margins but is not a source of widespread, sustained outrage and condemnation. This distinction is reserved, very clearly, for those in The Club.